I was brash in my last post. I'm sorry, I tend to get carried away and my writing isn't as clear as it should be. Off the bat I'll say that it wasn't my intention to chide or insult anyone's point of view, I'll do my best to be less aggressive in the way I transmit my opinions.
Secondly,
Joe, I'd like to thank you (as an interested bystander, since I can't really say that I've contributed much) for the discussion you've sparked by coming here.
I'm sorry for your loss... I have two siblings and I love them both, I feel for you.
Lady of Shallot:
You're right, of course. I do seem to imply that atheism is solely a Christian phenomenon, I don't think it is. I was referring rather to the debate on the adequacy of the Christian myth and the existence of god which has been occurring in the western world for some time now.lady of shallot wrote: It would seem reasonable that all religions over all time would have had their atheists. Not just Christianity.
Popular writers such as Richard Dawkins constantly turn out new literature on why we shouldn't believe in god. Others, such as Karen Armstrong give great explanations on the Bible's historical background and significance. There's obviously more to this body of knowledge, and I'll say honestly that I've only read a very small part of it... I've only looked at these books out of curiosity for the history of Christian religion. My point however is that the Atheism we are experiencing at this moment is framed around (not exclusively, but substantially) two on-going discussions. One centered on the validity of the foundations the Christian religion is built upon, the other centered on the development of a valid secular system of moral philosophy.
The beginnings of the first discussion, though more formal and philosophically oriented, can be traced to the start of the twentieth century, with philosophers like Nietzsche and Camus; it can also be seen in the political philosophies of the late nineteenth century, for example the Marxist ideas of communism (ideas very obviously founded on Judeo-Christian principles which nonetheless reject the Christian myth entirely). The origins of the discussion can be traced further back still to the Inquisitions, but that's outside the breadth of this particular conversation.
The second discussion runs parallel to the first. Victor Frankle, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, and a long etc. have been discussing the ideas of free-will and moral responsibility for what can adequately be described as a fairly long time.
My point with this is that Atheism as we know it, while certainly being a question of personal inclination, is only the tip of the historical ice berg. And a good chunk of that iceberg has to do with Christianity.
You're right, I was wrong to call it a religious movement. However when two or more sides are arguing without any sign of compromise, that can hardly be called a debate anymore can it? The discussion over the existence of god for example. I guess that's just some of my own angst .lady of shallot wrote: I also don't agree that atheism is a religious movement (although I do understand what you mean by saying that) nor do I think it is a choice. I didn't awaken one morning and say, "Hey, guess I'll stop believing in God!"
I do not choose atheism. I AM an atheist.
I also think we do live together atheist and believer. Certainly I don't love my religious siblings less, nor they me, because we do not share the same religious views.
As to the last part of that quote = "I do not choose atheism. I AM an atheist.” my first inclination is to disagree with you outright. Are you saying that religious belief is genetic? Or that the way you have grown and developed dictated that, at the moment you came into direct confrontation with the question of belief in god, you realized that you didn't believe?
The first one makes no sense to me, a genetic predisposition of something so complex as the mental construct that is religious belief doesn't seem defensible. In all fairness I asked my sister about this, she has a degree in psychology and specializes in psychobiology, so I trust her opinion will be better informed than mine. She told me that although it's possible that certain genetic personality traits, reinforced or stemmed through nurture during the first stages of infancy may influence what decisions a person makes throughout their lives, it's impossible that any rationalized belief held by any one person be genetic.
On the other hand, the idea that you "felt" that you didn't believe in god when you finally confronted the question directly makes more sense to me because I empathize with it. I feel my own initial experience is similar. Although I don't believe that I had no choice but to accept the non-existence of god. In fact for the first few years of my "atheism" I believed that god must exist, it was just that these people in the dresses with the huge books didn't know what they were talking about. Only through a gradual understanding of my own and other religions did I finally accept that there was no reason for my own belief to be "right" while others where "wrong" and renounced my belief in god while maintaining that this in no way detracted from the value religion might have had in my own life as well as in the life of others around me and throughout history. For me the decision to stop believing in god was conscious. I guess I was lucky because my family was so religiously gregarious and tolerant to begin with.
Besides, there are many examples of conversions of faith from one religion to another, from religion to atheism and vice versa. If belief is predisposed, how can you explain this?
On another note, I understand that we all do live together. My own family has in it a Buddhist, a lot of Christians, a Muslim and a couple of non-believers and we all get along fine, we would never think of our beliefs as a line to draw upon the sand. Could you imagine the infighting with the in-laws if we did xD? We don't really touch on the existence of god anymore because we find it really doesn't help anybody get along and nobody seems to be convincing anyone else anyway. What I meant to say is that the discussion of god's existence isn't important to me. That's all.
Once again I'm sorry for my lack of clearness; it wasn't my intention to say that all of Atheism is the result of Christianity.stahrwe wrote: Atheism is a direct result of Christianity; Really?
To describe any one complex human event as the single cause of any other is impossible in history, however one of the prevalent elements in "our" manifestation of Atheism is a reaction to Christian Dogma. The discussions on the existence of god, free-will and morality have taken place in Occidental Europe and the Americas for the greater part of their durations. Do other such discussions exist in other parts of the world? Perhaps, but ours most certainly have Christian roots.
I would point out that we sometimes choose to maintain many Christian principles of morality despite our rejection of the religion itself and that the influence of Christianity on our society goes far beyond that. Our perception of sex, the idea of sin and existential guilt, marriage, our perception of homosexuality, heck... communism, human rights, equality of all men... all have a common heritage in the Christian world that gave them form and they all still form a tangible part of current society.
The problems that exist between Christianity and modern society aren't hidden, or hard to see. We discuss them all the time.stahrwe wrote: And just what exactly about Christianity is outdated?
- It's becoming harder to reconcile the Christian myth with the advancement of scientific knowledge, which is why the Bible itself is losing ever more influence, and *I think* could also be one of the reasons why many believers (although not the religious institutions themselves, yet) relegate the Good Book's importance to a second plane while arguing instead that Christianity is more about the direct relationship with god.
- It's also hard to reconcile the stand of Christian and catholic institutions on homosexuality, sexuality and birth control with a society that is increasingly permissive of each of these. While these positions might have had relevance in their own historical contexts, today they're becoming ever harder to defend. Yet a change to the catholic religion's stand on birth control and sexuality would imply a very large shift in their perception of human life and procreation.
- Another aspect of these faiths which is outdated and something of a hindrance in modern times is its religious exclusivity. There is only one god, you must believe in him and in nothing else. This is hardly conductive to religious plurality. If we wish for the different world religions and cultures to hold useful dialogues amongst themselves, this view simply can't be maintained. This aspect of belief is also starting to change, albeit not institutionally. A much more pronounced version of this problem can be seen occurring in Islam.
Again, this is my fault for lack of clearness. By using the word "coexist" I've implied that they did so peacefully. Sadly, religious violence seems to appear whenever two or more religions coexist for an extended period of time...stahrwe wrote: I suggest that you google:
Hindu on Christian violence
Buddhist on Christian violence
of course there is no need to do it for Islam but check out the area you are citing anyway.
However my point was not whether or not violence existed between the religions in South East Asia, it's the fact that religion has been much more successful in maintaining its faithfuls in this part of the world.
I'm also glad that you mentioned China, because you're right, China is officially an Atheist state. It's also a prime example of what happens when you try to forcefully supress religious belief. With the end of the Cultural Revolution came the re-instatement of several world religions and the institution of what they called "religious freedom", they brought back Buddhism and Taoism as well as Christianity. However the people of China simply didn't buy into these new official religions, instead they opted for the beliefs they never actually let go of and which were maintained secretly and subtly through all of the Cultural Revolution, ancestor worship and some extant religions such as Feng Shui. You'll find that these cultural beliefs ran strong in Chinese society throughout the late twentieth century.
I don't know much about religion in contemporary China, I haven't looked into it or visited the place (although I'd love to see Beijing), but I imagine today the situation is somewhat similar, although more plural.
I would say "Our" god is the one we've stopped believing in. I know that I'm as much an ex-Christian as I am an atheist, and I think it must be much the same for anyone who's grown up with Christianity around them. We're steeped in the culture and the moral system and society that have made up the Christian religion, as much as we might wish to be free of its influence, we can't be without sacrificing a large part of our culture. It'd be like dynamiting the floor under our feet to better define where we're standing.stahrwe wrote: As an atheist, who or what exactly is "Our" god?
You are right about your prediction that Christianity will decrease, but it will not be replace by atheism, it will be replaced by a universal humanist church which will be an amalgum of all religions and atheism.
I don't make any outright predictions as to the future of religion stahrwe, and while the idea of an amalgamated universal humanist church may be tempting, I don't see it happening any time soon unless the peoples of the world suddenly decide they've fought long enough and join into a single nation... or religion loses enough political significance that no one will object the union of all religions... in which case such a religion probably wouldn't be relevant anymore. This specific topic feels a lot like sci-fi and reminds me of some of the star wars and terry pratchett discussions I've had over the years...xD.
Sorry lady, I was too aggressive. And you're right, we all have a right to discuss the topics we find relevant. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Forums are an outlet for me too, I've tried to argue these things with my family but we're all too apologetic by nature.lady of shallot wrote: I neglected to say that in the post by VLMN, he appears to be chiding us for discussing atheism. But why should we not? Why does a discussion have to be considered an argument? Why should we be muffled? This site offers an atheism forum and a religious forum. Christians, and other religious people can assemble together to worship or just have kinship in a specific setting at a specific time. Atheists are denied such an outlet.
Interbane, ESS and the idea that morality evolves seems interesting. Although I don't know whether the breadth of time in which society (and thus the constraints of community to allow for the development of morality) has existed could be considered enough to allow for the evolution you're suggesting.
Or are you saying that the actual behaviors, not the individuals, have evolved and been maintained?
Do you have anything I can read on this that isn't too technical? I'd love something introductory.
EDIT: Editted for spelling errors... I'm so ashamed.